United States v. Sergeant JEFFREY T. ROACH ( 2008 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    Before
    HOLDEN, HOFFMAN, and SULLIVAN
    Appellate Military Judges
    UNITED STATES, Appellee
    v.
    Sergeant JEFFREY T. ROACH
    United States Army, Appellant
    ARMY 20070355
    Headquarters, Fort Hood
    Theodore E. Dixon, Military Judge
    For Appellant:  Major Sean Mangan; Colonel Allen F. Bareford (on brief);
    Colonel Christopher J. O’Brien, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Steven C. Henricks,
    JA; Major Sean F. Mangan, JA; Major William M. Fischbach III (on motion).
    For Appellee:  Lieutenant Colonel Francis C. Kiley; Captain W. Todd
    Kuchenthal, JA (on brief); Major Elizabeth G. Marotta, JA; Major Tami L.
    Dillahunt, JA; Captain Adam S. Kazin, JA (on motion).
    5 May 2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON RECONSIDERATION
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Per Curiam:
    A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted
    appellant, contrary to his pleas, of indecent acts with a child in
    violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 
    10 U.S.C. § 934
    [hereinafter UCMJ].  The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence
    to a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $600.00 pay per month for twelve
    months, and reduction to Private E1.
    This case was originally submitted to the court under Article 66,
    UCMJ, upon its merits without any assigned errors.  The findings and
    sentence were affirmed by this court in an opinion issued on 5 November
    2007.  Pursuant to Rules 13, 19, and 23 of this court’s Internal Rules of
    Practice and Procedure, appellant petitioned for reconsideration of our
    decision.  We granted the motion on 5 May 2008, thereby vacating our 5
    November 2007 decision.
    Appellant requested reconsideration based on the decision of our
    superior court in United States v. Lopez de Victoria, which would
    invalidate appellant’s conviction because of the expiration of the statute
    of limitations for the offense for which appellant was convicted.  
    66 M.J. 67
    , 74 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (“[D]eclining to extend the reach of the 2003
    amendment to Article 43, UCMJ, to cases which arose prior to the amendment
    of the statute.”).
    Applying Lopez De Victoria to the case under review, the findings of
    guilty and the sentence are set aside and dismissed.  All rights,
    privileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived of are
    ordered restored.  See Article 58b(c) and 75(a), UCMJ.
    FOR THE COURT:
    MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
    Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: ARMY 20070355

Filed Date: 5/5/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021